[racket] future

I want to be able to:
#lang racket/L ; sacrifice L in honor of profoundly useful lambda
rac
On Aug 29, 2011, at 3:36 PM, Greg Hendershott wrote:
>> it wouldn't be necessary to create all these duplicate forms to avoid
>> writing (lambda () ...) This would cut down on code, and also make the
>> language more consistent.
>> I think Noel has it exactly right.
>> The common concept is "thunk".
>> The desire is, how to say it more succinctly.
>> Surely there should be one way to say it more succinctly, which works
> with many forms? As opposed to many forms each needing its variation
> to say the one thing more succinctly?
>>> So: How to say it more succinctly than (lambda () e)? Or even the
> i-can-haz-unicode way, (λ () e)?
>> (thunk e) is a first approximation. But, "thunk" is jargon, and it's
> barely more succinct than (lambda () e).
>> So, how about any of these as the super succinct way:
> (() e)
> (\ e)
> (λ e)
>> ??
>> Actually I'm fine with (lambda () e) or (λ () e). I don't think a
> couple extra parens are horrible, or I'd be writing C# or
> cortex-fudge. And I don't think it's horrible for functions to be
> first-class, and to express "here's some stuff to do" as "here's a
> function".
>> 2011/8/29 Noel Welsh <noelwelsh at gmail.com>:
>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Eli Barzilay <eli at barzilay.org> wrote:
>>> There's also the semi-popular syntax extension change, like {E ...}
>>> expanding to (λ () E ...), but that looks very confusing with
>>> something like (thread {(printf "foo\n")}) -- so maybe do that with
>>> the outer form: {thread (printf "foo\n")}. Or maybe do that with a
>>> macro instead: (e thread (printf "foo\n")), which will probably go the
>>> way of `nested'.
>>>> Yeah, what about solving the problem of lambda's verbosity directly?
>> If fn or \ was shorthand for lambda, or
>>>> { a1 ... | expr ... }
>>>> expanded to
>>>> (lambda (a1 ...) expr ...)
>>>> it wouldn't be necessary to create all these duplicate forms to avoid
>> writing (lambda () ...) This would cut down on code, and also make the
>> language more consistent.
>>>> N.
>>>> _________________________________________________
>> For list-related administrative tasks:
>>http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users>> _________________________________________________
> For list-related administrative tasks:
>http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users